Climate Change – Newman Correct. Letter to Pope Damns “Science”. RET Target Doubt. More UK Policy Changes

There are some encouraging developments in the questioning of the warmist interpretation of climate changes.

My Letter Defends Newman

The AFR has published a letter under my signature (see below) with some editing that actually enhances my defence of Newman’s attack in The Australian last Friday on the one-sided role being played by the UN in climate change negotiations. We have, of course, come to expect such one-sidedness. But the statement by the chief negotiator, Christiana Figueres, is so blatantly one-sided, indeed destructive, that it deserves at a minimum  a protest to the UN by the government.

Letter to the Pope

Terry McCrann’s article below has drawn attention to the letter sent to the Pope by 142 leading scientists, theologians, academics and commentators and urges “him not to join the climate hysterics in their war on the fossil fuels that power the planet”. Most importantly, these signatories (rightly) claim that “Empirical Evidence Suggests that Fossil Fuel Use Will Not Cause Catastrophic Warming”. While the imminent dictum by the Pope is unlikely to accept this, the letter might cause him to indicate that there is another side to the warmist view. A pity that Australian religious leaders are as usual behind the ball game.

Renewable Energy Target Questioned

Below is a report that the Clean Energy Council has rejected the renewable energy target agreed by the Coalition and Opposition because the government has included a requirement to review every two years. This development by a body, which seeks and obtains government support/subsidies for RET investments, could allow the government to respond and emphasise the uncertain future of RETs.

More UK Developments

My Commentary on 10 May referred to likely favourable developments in the UK following the Tory win. Reports indicate that  subsidies for renewable power could even be scrapped (an election pledge was to cut subsidies and Cameron is apparently on record as having described the subsidies to be “green crap” ).  Also, the new Energy Minister Rudd (no relation I assume!) is an advocate of fracking provided it is done “extremely safely”. There is talk of a scrapping of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and a hiving off of its various arms.

An interesting comment in an article in the Financial Times on 10 May on energy policy and reducing emissions was that “the reality is that there is no global deal and even in Europe there is no effective carbon price. Nor is any progress being made to develop carbon capture and storage technology ….The UN Paris conference at the end of this year will be the moment at which the failure of current policy becomes obvious. Vague commitments to reduce future emissions do not amount to a global deal. Sooner or later a new government (and indeed the EU) will have to accept that the current approach has failed and that since the risks remain unchanged a different approach is necessary”.

That a leading UK newspaper envisages a possible major change in policy on emission reductions may be optimistic (for sceptics). But it shows that a shift in thinking is occurring and an opportunity exists for the Abbott government to take advantage of that.